Do you consciously reject the limitation of common thinking in order to achieve uncommon results?

I find people who are comfortable in paradox seem to really get the most from any situation and that is why they can think independently and not have their thoughts usurped by what is defined as a standard of care. I'd rather have optimal over avg.

I agree that a general understanding of biology and physiology should play an enormous role in nutritional exploration. Unfortunately, most of the public is not willing or able to understand these principles. As such, they rely on physicians and scientists to spoon feed them information. What they don't realize, sadly, is that many of these physicians and scientists don't use biology and physiology as a basis either.

The key is understanding how it changes as one lives, and ages and hormone status change. The reason there is general confusion is because people are looking at the problem from the wrong point of you. The outcome instead of the cellular environment and how it changes with time. That is my focus in the paleo world. What a young paleo does and what they should do are two different points. This is magnified for older paleo's. This is why Art D is very shrewd. He has not said it clearly.....but he has thin sliced it. I plan on detail explanation of it and I fully expect mAny to not get it

And there are many physically fit people making things work for them now in todays context. My focus is as your context adapts.....and you are no longer optimal you need to rely on the one think that is 100% known......biochemistry and physiology. Once that changes what you do must also change to remain optimal. This is a huge problem in paleo. Most 18 to 27 yr old don't have the problems most do in our country but they seem to not understand that context. Moreover there are many young people who are already train wrecks that have to make changes faster and more dramatically.

Definitely. I think this very ideal is central to following any regimen of paleolithic nutrition as it does go widely against accepted knowledge. One should be able to form their own opinion based on empirical evidence on a variety of topics. The point at which this principle blurs for many is the conflict between short-term and long-term results. We essentially function on the basis of a primitive system of rewards and positive or negative reinforcement.

If something makes us feel good or provides perceived benefit, we continue to follow it. It takes a great deal of conscious effort or understanding to break a reward cycle. Unfortunately, when these principles are reinforced by popular opinion (when it's coming from perceived experts such as doctors and scientists), it makes it that much harder. Likewise, it takes a great deal of effort to follow something that provides only long-term reward. If we take for example, an overweight person who begins paleo and starts losing weight and feeling better, that reward is frequent enough to have them follow the plan.

On the other hand, a physically fit individual on a standard american diet will probably be more reluctant to switch as any major reward will likely be longer-term and unproven. But how can we blame them? What they are doing works for them. This same principle can apply to medications. If a medication works for a certain ailment, even if it is less than optimal or can be replaced by "more desirable" measures, it is likely that it will not be because it already provides the short-term reward that a physician or patient needs to continue it. Considering the long-term is put off.

Most of everything we do is in some way incentive-driven. If we are supported in those endeavors by experts, we are less likely to change. Those who are able to consciously look beyond popular means and incorporate personal trial, error, and experimentation are probably much better off in the long run.

I agree that a general understanding of biology and physiology should play an enormous role in nutritional exploration. Unfortunately, most of the public is not willing or able to understand these principles. As such, they rely on physicians and scientists to spoon feed them information. What they don't realize, sadly, is that many of these physicians and scientists don't use biology and physiology as a basis either.

The key is understanding how it changes as one lives, and ages and hormone status change. The reason there is general confusion is because people are looking at the problem from the wrong point of you. The outcome instead of the cellular environment and how it changes with time. That is my focus in the paleo world. What a young paleo does and what they should do are two different points. This is magnified for older paleo's. This is why Art D is very shrewd. He has not said it clearly.....but he has thin sliced it. I plan on detail explanation of it and I fully expect mAny to not get it

And there are many physically fit people making things work for them now in todays context. My focus is as your context adapts.....and you are no longer optimal you need to rely on the one think that is 100% known......biochemistry and physiology. Once that changes what you do must also change to remain optimal. This is a huge problem in paleo. Most 18 to 27 yr old don't have the problems most do in our country but they seem to not understand that context. Moreover there are many young people who are already train wrecks that have to make changes faster and more dramatically.

In almost everything I do, yes. And it doesn't always lead to optimal results, sometimes it's worse than how others who do things conventionally measure up. I find that when I do get results above the norm by approaching things from a unique angle, they tend to be extraordinary. Paleo just so happens to be my foremost example of the results being incredible from top to bottom.